Saint Peter

====Protestant rejection of Catholic claims====
Other theologically conservative Christians, including [[Confessional Lutherans]], also rebut comments made by Karl Keating and D.A. Carson who claim that there is no distinction between the words ''petros'' and ''petra'' in Koine Greek. The Lutheran theologians state that the dictionaries of [[Koine Greek|Koine/NT Greek]], including the authoritative<ref>Rykle Borger, "Remarks of an Outsider about Bauer's Worterbuch, BAGD, BDAG, and Their Textual Basis," Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, Bernard A. Tayler (et al. eds.) pp. 32–47.</ref> [[Bauer lexicon|Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon]], indeed list both words and the passages that give different meanings for each. The Lutheran theologians further note that:

{{blockquote|We honor Peter and in fact some of our churches are named after him, but he was not the first pope, nor was he Roman Catholic. If you read his first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests. The same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18.<ref name="WELS">{{cite web|url=http://arkiv.lbk.cc/faq/site.pl@1518cutopic_topicid19cuitem_itemid6106.htm |title=WELS Topical Q&A: Responses to previous questions |publisher=Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod |date=2013-08-08 |access-date=2015-10-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130808194544/http://arkiv.lbk.cc/faq/site.pl%401518cutopic_topicid19cuitem_itemid6106.htm |archive-date=8 August 2013 |df=dmy-all }}</ref>}}

[[File:Dirck van Baburen Saint Peter.jpg|thumb|''Saint Peter'' by [[Dirck van Baburen]] (c. 1615–1620)]] 
[[Oscar Cullmann]], a Lutheran theologian and distinguished Church historian, disagrees with Luther and the Protestant reformers who held that by "rock" Christ did not mean Peter, but meant either himself or the faith of His followers. He believes the meaning of the original Aramaic is very clear: that "Kepha" was the Aramaic word for "rock", and that it was also the name by which Christ called Peter.<ref name=Time/>

Yet, Cullmann sharply rejects the Catholic claim that Peter began the papal succession. He writes: "In the life of Peter there is no starting point for a chain of succession to the leadership of the church at large." While he believes the Matthew text is entirely valid and is in no way spurious, he says it cannot be used as "warrant of the papal succession."<ref name=Time>{{Cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110622111607/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html |archive-date=22 June 2011 |title=Religion: Peter & the Rock |publisher=Time |date=7 December 1953 |access-date=12 September 2010}}</ref> Cullmann concludes that while Peter ''was'' the original head of the apostles, Peter was not the founder of any visible church succession.<ref name="Time" />

There are other Protestant scholars who also partially defend the historical Catholic position about "Rock."<ref>D. A. Carson in ''The Expositor's Bible Commentary'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).</ref> Taking a somewhat different approach from Cullman, they point out that the Gospel of Matthew was not written in the classical Attic form of Greek, but in the Hellenistic [[Koine Greek|Koine dialect]] in which there is no distinction in meaning between ''petros'' and ''petra''. Moreover, even in Attic Greek, in which the regular meaning of ''petros'' was a smallish "stone", there are instances of its use to refer to larger rocks, as in [[Sophocles]], ''[[Oedipus at Colonus]]'' v. 1595, where ''petros'' refers to a boulder used as a landmark, obviously something more than a pebble. In any case, a ''petros''/''petra'' distinction is irrelevant considering the Aramaic language in which the phrase might well have been spoken. In Greek, of any period, the feminine noun ''petra'' could not be used as the given name of a male, which may explain the use of ''Petros'' as the Greek word with which to translate Aramaic ''Kepha''.<ref name="keating" />

Yet, still other Protestant scholars believe that Jesus in fact ''did'' mean to single out Peter as the very rock which he will build upon, but that the passage does nothing to indicate a continued succession of Peter's implied position. They assert that Matthew uses the demonstrative pronoun ''taute'', which allegedly means "this very" or "this same", when he refers to the rock on which Jesus' church will be built. He also uses the Greek word for "and", ''kai''. It is alleged that when a demonstrative pronoun is used with ''kai'', the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. The second rock Jesus refers to must then be the same rock as the first one; and if Peter is the first rock, he must also be the second.<ref>''Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy''</ref>

Unlike Oscar Cullmann, [[Confessional Lutherans]] and many other Protestant apologists agree that it's meaningless to elaborate the meaning of "Rock" by looking at the Aramaic language. While the Jews spoke mostly Aramaic at home, in public they usually spoke Greek. The few Aramaic words spoken by Jesus in public were unusual, which is why they are noted as such. And most importantly the New Testament was revealed in Koine Greek, ''not'' Aramaic.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GawrischDoctrine.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203191915/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GawrischDoctrine.pdf|title=The Doctrine of Church and Ministry in the Life of the Church Today|archive-date=3 February 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BalgeMinistry.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203192344/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BalgeMinistry.pdf|title=Cross-Cultural And Multicultural Ministry in the New Testament|archive-date=3 February 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_017.html|title=Some Thoughts on Matthew 16:18|access-date=4 August 2014|archive-date=16 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200216191505/http://www.graceway.com/articles/article_017.html}}</ref>

Lutheran historians even report that the Catholic church itself did not, at least unanimously, regard Peter as the rock until the 1870s:
{{blockquote|Rome's rule for explaining the Scriptures and determining doctrine is the [[Profession of faith (Catholic Church)#Tridentine Creed|Creed]] of [[Pius IV]]. This Creed binds Rome to explain the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. In the year 1870 when the Fathers gathered and the pope declared his infallibility, the cardinals were not in agreement on Matthew 16, 18. They had five different interpretations. Seventeen insisted, Peter is the rock. Sixteen held that Christ is the rock. Eight were emphatic that the whole apostolic college is the rock. Forty-four said, Peter's faith is the rock, The remainder looked upon the whole body of believers as the rock. – And yet Rome taught and still teaches that Peter is the rock.<ref name=WLS-Eckert>{{cite web|url=http://www.wlsessays.net/files/EckertSpecific.pdf |title=The Specific Functions of the Church in the World |last1=Eckert |first1=Harold H. |publisher=Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary |access-date=4 Feb 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203182715/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/EckertSpecific.pdf |archive-date=3 February 2015 |df=dmy-all }}</ref>}}